(07-20-2015 07:15 PM)omniorange Wrote:  In my mind, neither were "deserving" of an NC, which is why both teams tend to show up on lists of most undeserving NCs in college football (along with BYU's 1984 team).

But that means little. You deal with the year and the results that are there. And when push comes to shove, those that make such lists like the above now, tend to agree that GT was 'more deserving' of the NC that year than Colorado because they went undefeated, beat Nebraska worse, actually changed Osbourne's philosophy to pursue faster players, and most often mentioned is the fifth down situation which would have given the Buffs two losses if called properly.

By the way, didn't the Orange from 1968 on into the Bowl Alliance in 1993 basically always get the Big 8 champion? I think the only exception was when OU the Big 8 champ was on probation and receive post-season bans.

Cheers,
Neil

Which just goes to show that GT's only argument here is the passage of time. The ACC had absolutely no respect back then and it was this specific year that broke the needle for the ACC becoming a respected conference. But for me I think NCs should be presented based on the context of the era that the season was played in. CU played an amazing schedule, was from an established conference, and had the support of the media and general public. it wasn't until younger fans came of age who didn't live through that era that this suddenly became a debatable subject.

(07-20-2015 07:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 07:26 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  LOL @ john

I see you are still an *******.

(07-20-2015 05:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  One school played in an undisputed power conference, the other didn't.

So give the champ to the team from the "best" conference, then? RIiiight!

That season, the #1 defense in the whole nation was Clemson... of the ACC
the #1 offense in whole nation was Virginia... of the ACC
and the BEST team in the whole nation was Ga Tech... of the ACC.

Learn to love it! or just learn to deal with it! Either way I DO NOT CARE!

(07-20-2015 08:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 05:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  One school played in an undisputed power conference, the other didn't.

So give the champ to the team from the "best" conference, then? RIiiight!

That season, the #1 defense in the whole nation was Clemson... of the ACC
the #1 offense in whole nation was Virginia... of the ACC
and the BEST team in the whole nation was Ga Tech... of the ACC.

Learn to love it! or just learn to deal with it! Either way I DO NOT CARE!

You know full well that's not what i was implying. Which school played in a major bowl? Which school played in the Citrus? Which school had to justify themselves to a team with two controversial wins and a loss despite being undefeated?

(07-20-2015 08:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 05:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  One school played in an undisputed power conference, the other didn't.

So give the champ to the team from the "best" conference, then? RIiiight!

That season, the #1 defense in the whole nation was Clemson... of the ACC
the #1 offense in whole nation was Virginia... of the ACC
and the BEST team in the whole nation was Ga Tech... of the ACC.

Learn to love it! or just learn to deal with it! Either way I DO NOT CARE!

You know full well that's not what i was implying. Which school played in a major bowl? Which school played in the Citrus? Which school had to justify themselves to a team with two controversial wins and a loss despite being undefeated?

As already stated, the Big 8 was the contracted conference for the Orange Bowl from 1968 through about 1992 or 1993, whenever the Bowl Coalition (the precursor to the BCS) came about. The only years the Big 8 champ didn't play in that bowl were the 1973 and 1974 seasons when the Big 8 champ Oklahoma didn't go to any bowl game due to a post-season ban.

Your arguments are legit for Colorado in terms of tougher perceived schedule but this "better bowl" argument is just weird.

Cheers,
Neil

In 1990 Colorado lost to Illinois, 23-22.
That same year Clemson beat Illinois 30-0.
Clemson finished with only 2 losses: Virginia and Ga Tech

Really, any argument that Colorado was actually better than Ga Tech that year is just indefensible. You can make arguments about the perceived prestige of the Big 8 vs. the ACC all you want, but that doesn't make Colorado "more deserving" than GT.

(07-20-2015 09:32 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 05:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  One school played in an undisputed power conference, the other didn't.

So give the champ to the team from the "best" conference, then? RIiiight!

That season, the #1 defense in the whole nation was Clemson... of the ACC
the #1 offense in whole nation was Virginia... of the ACC
and the BEST team in the whole nation was Ga Tech... of the ACC.

Learn to love it! or just learn to deal with it! Either way I DO NOT CARE!

You know full well that's not what i was implying. Which school played in a major bowl? Which school played in the Citrus? Which school had to justify themselves to a team with two controversial wins and a loss despite being undefeated?

As already stated, the Big 8 was the contracted conference for the Orange Bowl from 1968 through about 1992 or 1993, whenever the Bowl Coalition (the precursor to the BCS) came about. The only years the Big 8 champ didn't play in that bowl were the 1973 and 1974 seasons when the Big 8 champ Oklahoma didn't go to any bowl game due to a post-season ban.

Your arguments are legit for Colorado in terms of tougher perceived schedule but this "better bowl" argument is just weird.

Cheers,
Neil

It's not weird. We have a documented history of using the bowl arrangements to determine power and non power conference status. We then use said status to punish/reward schools for whether or not a team has earned a NC.

(07-20-2015 10:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In 1990 Colorado lost to Illinois, 23-22.
That same year Clemson beat Illinois 30-0.
Clemson finished with only 2 losses: Virginia and Ga Tech

Really, any argument that Colorado was actually better than Ga Tech that year is just indefensible. You can make arguments about the perceived prestige of the Big 8 vs. the ACC all you want, but that doesn't make Colorado "more deserving" than GT.

It's one thing to use the transitive property between two teams. However to use the transitive property for a team that lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to GT is pathetic. That is as arbitrary as it gets. Using that logic Bowling Green which beat IU which beat MU is better than any team in the SEC East.

(07-20-2015 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In 1990 Colorado lost to Illinois, 23-22.
That same year Clemson beat Illinois 30-0.
Clemson finished with only 2 losses: Virginia and Ga Tech

Really, any argument that Colorado was actually better than Ga Tech that year is just indefensible. You can make arguments about the perceived prestige of the Big 8 vs. the ACC all you want, but that doesn't make Colorado "more deserving" than GT.

It's one thing to use the transitive property between two teams. However to use the transitive property for a team that lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to GT is pathetic. That is as arbitrary as it gets. Using that logic Bowling Green which beat IU which beat MU is better than any team in the SEC East.

Wait... records against common opponents is "pathetic" but judging a team on its conference bowl tie-ins is "logical"?

(07-20-2015 03:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 03:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Colorado was the legit champion that year (I'll see myself out)

Says only Colorado fans and morons.

This is pretty much the most accurate post in this thread.

(07-21-2015 08:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In 1990 Colorado lost to Illinois, 23-22.
That same year Clemson beat Illinois 30-0.
Clemson finished with only 2 losses: Virginia and Ga Tech

Really, any argument that Colorado was actually better than Ga Tech that year is just indefensible. You can make arguments about the perceived prestige of the Big 8 vs. the ACC all you want, but that doesn't make Colorado "more deserving" than GT.

It's one thing to use the transitive property between two teams. However to use the transitive property for a team that lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to GT is pathetic. That is as arbitrary as it gets. Using that logic Bowling Green which beat IU which beat MU is better than any team in the SEC East.

Wait... records against common opponents is "pathetic" but judging a team on its conference bowl tie-ins is "logical"?

it's not "common opponents" as you are bring up teams that both schools did not play to prove your ridiculous transitive property talking point correct. And if power conference status wasn't a factor, Utah, BSU, and TCU would have some NCs on their resume from the 2000s.

(07-21-2015 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 08:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In 1990 Colorado lost to Illinois, 23-22.
That same year Clemson beat Illinois 30-0.
Clemson finished with only 2 losses: Virginia and Ga Tech

Really, any argument that Colorado was actually better than Ga Tech that year is just indefensible. You can make arguments about the perceived prestige of the Big 8 vs. the ACC all you want, but that doesn't make Colorado "more deserving" than GT.

It's one thing to use the transitive property between two teams. However to use the transitive property for a team that lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to GT is pathetic. That is as arbitrary as it gets. Using that logic Bowling Green which beat IU which beat MU is better than any team in the SEC East.

Wait... records against common opponents is "pathetic" but judging a team on its conference bowl tie-ins is "logical"?

it's not "common opponents" as you are bring up teams that both schools did not play to prove your ridiculous transitive property talking point correct. And if power conference status wasn't a factor, Utah, BSU, and TCU would have some NCs on their resume from the 2000s.

Umm... I don't think this is an unreasonable comparison, but OK...

Both teams played Nebraska.
Colorado 27, Nebraska 12 (15 points)
Ga Tech 45, Nebraska 21 (24 points)

also sure that Colorado lost 1 game, tied another, while GT had zero losses and 1 tie.

The ONLY basis I've seen proffered for giving it to Colorado is because they were in the Big 8, whereas Ga Tech was in the ACC. Nevermind that there were probably 3 teams that year - Clemson, Ga Tech and Virginia - any of whom might have won the Big 8 outright had they played Colorado's schedule.

(07-21-2015 11:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 10:44 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 08:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In 1990 Colorado lost to Illinois, 23-22.
That same year Clemson beat Illinois 30-0.
Clemson finished with only 2 losses: Virginia and Ga Tech

Really, any argument that Colorado was actually better than Ga Tech that year is just indefensible. You can make arguments about the perceived prestige of the Big 8 vs. the ACC all you want, but that doesn't make Colorado "more deserving" than GT.

It's one thing to use the transitive property between two teams. However to use the transitive property for a team that lost to a team that lost to a team that lost to GT is pathetic. That is as arbitrary as it gets. Using that logic Bowling Green which beat IU which beat MU is better than any team in the SEC East.

Wait... records against common opponents is "pathetic" but judging a team on its conference bowl tie-ins is "logical"?

it's not "common opponents" as you are bring up teams that both schools did not play to prove your ridiculous transitive property talking point correct. And if power conference status wasn't a factor, Utah, BSU, and TCU would have some NCs on their resume from the 2000s.

Umm... I don't think this is an unreasonable comparison, but OK...

Both teams played Nebraska.
Colorado 27, Nebraska 12 (15 points)
Ga Tech 45, Nebraska 21 (24 points)

also sure that Colorado lost 1 game, tied another, while GT had zero losses and 1 tie.

The ONLY basis I've seen proffered for giving it to Colorado is because they were in the Big 8, whereas Ga Tech was in the ACC. Nevermind that there were probably 3 teams that year - Clemson, Ga Tech and Virginia - any of whom might have won the Big 8 outright had they played Colorado's schedule.

I already addressed that specific point had you looked a little earlier in the thread.

CU beat NU when they were ranked 3rd, 8-0 and in Lincoln. GT beat NU when they were 19th, had lost two of their last three, and the game was in Florida.

You just lost any an all credibility with your comment about any of the three ACC teams winning the Big Eight.

UVA? They finished with four losses including one against Tenn (which CU tied that year). (Speaking of which Tenn also lost to ND, a school that CU beat) It just goes to show precisely how terrible your multi-team transitive property talking point is. Proving that it is completely arbitrary, and that you basically used it to show selective stats it to fit your own talking point.

The toughest teams Clemson played OOC that year were UGA (4-7), Scar (6-5), and Illinois (8-4). Illinois at #25 was the only team they beat that finished ranked. You are pulling the stupid SEC circle jerk talking point by rewarding a team simply for being a member of a specific conference because they lost to all the good teams then going on to proclaim them as a top tier team.

It's the exact same story with GT. Claiming they could have been a contender in the Big Eight without having anything on the schedule to justify it. They only played two schools that finished ranked. UVA at #23, NU at #24. Are you serious with this horses***?

Colorado beat Seven opponents that finished ranked including four in the top 12. They beat the top team from every major conference except the B1G (they beat the #3 B1G Team), and one of the top independents. It's pretty clear that CU has the advantage in the "if you flipped GT & CU's conferences" talking point.

I think john is enjoying a Rocky Mountain high. Boulder style.

What else explains that kind of departure from reality?

Wonder if his keyboard is coated in cheeto dust.

(07-21-2015 02:50 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I think john is enjoying a Rocky Mountain high. Boulder style.

What else explains that kind of departure from reality?

Wonder if his keyboard is coated in cheeto dust.

More likely powdered sugar donuts given his highs. He'll stop when the carbohydrate lows kick in.

(07-21-2015 02:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 02:50 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I think john is enjoying a Rocky Mountain high. Boulder style.

What else explains that kind of departure from reality?

Wonder if his keyboard is coated in cheeto dust.

More likely powdered sugar donuts given his highs. He'll stop when the carbohydrate lows kick in.

Those arguing in favor of GT have a problem with facts.

(07-20-2015 10:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 09:32 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 05:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  One school played in an undisputed power conference, the other didn't.

So give the champ to the team from the "best" conference, then? RIiiight!

That season, the #1 defense in the whole nation was Clemson... of the ACC
the #1 offense in whole nation was Virginia... of the ACC
and the BEST team in the whole nation was Ga Tech... of the ACC.

Learn to love it! or just learn to deal with it! Either way I DO NOT CARE!

You know full well that's not what i was implying. Which school played in a major bowl? Which school played in the Citrus? Which school had to justify themselves to a team with two controversial wins and a loss despite being undefeated?

As already stated, the Big 8 was the contracted conference for the Orange Bowl from 1968 through about 1992 or 1993, whenever the Bowl Coalition (the precursor to the BCS) came about. The only years the Big 8 champ didn't play in that bowl were the 1973 and 1974 seasons when the Big 8 champ Oklahoma didn't go to any bowl game due to a post-season ban.

Your arguments are legit for Colorado in terms of tougher perceived schedule but this "better bowl" argument is just weird.

Cheers,
Neil

It's not weird. We have a documented history of using the bowl arrangements to determine power and non power conference status. We then use said status to punish/reward schools for whether or not a team has earned a NC.

Honestly, you HAD NO IDEA whatsoever about the OB arrangement until I brought it to your attention. I tried to do it nicely to give you some room to back out of this particular point, but so much for that.

So let me spell it out for you - the argument is weird because all it does is show that the Big 8 was in general perceived to be a better football conference than the ACC. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that particular year itself.

Colorado got the Orange Bowl because the Big 8 Champ went to the OB.

Now if you want to continue to argue they were the better team based upon SOS that is fine. Reasonable minds can disagree on that. But to say that Colorado was the better team because they played in the OB is a stupid argument to make.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-21-2015 04:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 10:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 09:32 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 08:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  So give the champ to the team from the "best" conference, then? RIiiight!

That season, the #1 defense in the whole nation was Clemson... of the ACC
the #1 offense in whole nation was Virginia... of the ACC
and the BEST team in the whole nation was Ga Tech... of the ACC.

Learn to love it! or just learn to deal with it! Either way I DO NOT CARE!

You know full well that's not what i was implying. Which school played in a major bowl? Which school played in the Citrus? Which school had to justify themselves to a team with two controversial wins and a loss despite being undefeated?

As already stated, the Big 8 was the contracted conference for the Orange Bowl from 1968 through about 1992 or 1993, whenever the Bowl Coalition (the precursor to the BCS) came about. The only years the Big 8 champ didn't play in that bowl were the 1973 and 1974 seasons when the Big 8 champ Oklahoma didn't go to any bowl game due to a post-season ban.

Your arguments are legit for Colorado in terms of tougher perceived schedule but this "better bowl" argument is just weird.

Cheers,
Neil

It's not weird. We have a documented history of using the bowl arrangements to determine power and non power conference status. We then use said status to punish/reward schools for whether or not a team has earned a NC.

Honestly, you HAD NO IDEA whatsoever about the OB arrangement until I brought it to your attention. I tried to do it nicely to give you some room to back out of this particular point, but so much for that.

So let me spell it out for you - the argument is weird because all it does is show that the Big 8 was in general perceived to be a better football conference than the ACC. It has nothing whatsoever to do with that particular year itself.

Colorado got the Orange Bowl because the Big 8 Champ went to the OB.

Now if you want to continue to argue they were the better team based upon SOS that is fine. Reasonable minds can disagree on that. But to say that Colorado was the better team because they played in the OB is a stupid argument to make.

Cheers,
Neil

You are a freaking punk dude. It's annoying as hell when someone says "you have no idea about X until I brought it up" line. It's annoying as hell because you don't know jack s*** about what goes on in my head, and I don't know what goes on in yours.

(07-21-2015 04:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

LOL @ john